[JaredL]

[ QUOTE ]

I think its niave to remark that the government can make cars safer. Pray tell, jaredl. What new safety feature do you have in mind? Go back to the 1950's through early 70's and look at those cars. With seatbelts, they are much safer than the cars of today. They had more mass and stronger frames. We don't have that today because of a cost/benefit analysis.


[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea. I'm no designer or engineer. However, cars have been getting safer as time goes on, so I think it's naive to think that further investment wouldn't help. Also, it's not necesary to make cars more safe to reduce the death rate in accidents, roads themselves could be made safer by improving them as well as lighting on roads.

[ QUOTE ]

It's funny that you mention drugs and crime. One, people are going to invent [censored] to get high with in their basements if marijuana and other drugs did not exist. And, two, the government's war on drugs is big cause of the current crime rate. So I don't think you can have it both ways.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have in no way suggested continuing the so called "war on drugs." I think a more sensible policy is needed. However, if the government say supported drug treatment programs that would help. This will obviously be seen as a blasphemy by some conservatives, but it's pretty clear that such investment would actually save more American lives than current funds that go to fighting the so-called "war on terror."

Again, I'm not an authority on how the money should be spent, that should be decided by people with more information than I have. However, it clearly could be spent more efficiently.

[ QUOTE ]

Before you harp on guns, maybe you should outlaw alcohol first. In 80% of the homicides in the USA, the victim, the perp or both were intoxicated.


[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't harped on guns. Domestic gun crime is a bigger problem in terrorism in this country, however. My point here is that no matter what you think the solution is to this, surely increased investment in domestic crime would lower the crime rate by more than the same investment would reduce the murdered by terrorists rate. If that's hiring more police officers, that alone would most reduce the number of violent crime deaths at least a little bit.

[ QUOTE ]

Really your post reflects nothing more than wishing thinking, because with or without terrorism, people are going to die in wrecks, because of falls, because of fights, and because of drugs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know it's wishfull thinking. My point is that so few people die in terrorist attacks that if we want the federal government to invest in saving lives, they should spend a hell of a lot more of that money domestically. If you think that we should not be spending the money on such liberal things, then the answer should be that the money shouldn't be spent at all.